Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming

WATERLOO, Ont. (Monday, Dec. 21, 2009) – Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth’s ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.

In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs – compounds once widely used as refrigerants – and cosmic rays – energy particles originating in outer space – are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.

“My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century,” Lu said. “Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming.”

His conclusions are based on observations that from 1950 up to now, the climate in the Arctic and Antarctic atmospheres has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact.

“Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000,” Lu said. “Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate.”

In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.

As well, there is no solid evidence that the global warming from 1950 to 2000 was due to CO2. Instead, Lu notes, it was probably due to CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays. And from 1850 to 1950, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the industrial revolution, while the global temperature kept nearly constant or only rose by about 0.1 C.

In previously published work, Lu demonstrated that an observed cyclic hole in the ozone layer provided proof of a new ozone depletion theory involving cosmic rays, which was developed by Lu and his former co-workers at Rutgers University and the Université de Sherbrooke. In the past, it was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth’s ozone layer is depleted due to the sun’s ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere.

The depletion theory says cosmic rays, rather than the sun’s UV light, play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone. In his study, published in Physical Review Letters, Lu analyzed reliable cosmic ray and ozone data in the period of 1980-2007, which cover two full 11-year solar cycles.

In his latest paper, Lu further proves the cosmic-ray-driven ozone depletion theory by showing a large number of data from laboratory and satellite observations. One reviewer wrote: “These are very strong facts and it appears that they have largely been ignored in the past when modelling the Antarctic ozone loss.”

New observations of the effects of CFCs and cosmic rays on ozone loss and global warming/cooling could be important to the Earth and humans in the 21st century. “It certainly deserves close attention,” Lu wrote in his paper, entitled Cosmic-Ray-Driven Electron-Induced Reactions of Halogenated Molecules Adsorbed on Ice Surfaces: Implications for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change.

Well it is pretty remarkable that someone can come out of the blue and simply claim that “it ain’t CO2”. Well I personally firmly believe it ain’t CO2, while I do understand the CO2 GHG trapping mechanisms and process.

My surprise is that Professor Lu can be so sure that his CFC/cosmic ray mechanism fully explains the observed patterns.
And of course one wonders how his cosmic ray effect fits in with Henrik Svensmark’s thesis.
Is it clouds or is it simply ozone holes.

I don’t get why so many people discount cosmic rays as a cause of climate change. Those particles move so fast that one could race a photon across the galaxy and lose by a few millimeters, and have the mass of a particle but the momentum of a tennis ball after being hit by a professional player. I’m glad somebody’s come out and said that they are a primary source of climate change.

George is right; with so many new theories flying at us, these are indeed exciting times. And while I haven’t read the paper yet (that’s next on my list), it does seem to fly in the face of Henrik’s theory (see The Cloud Mystery series on YouTube if you haven’t alread). Perhaps they are somewhat offsetting, or one is more dominanat than the other, or there’s even more mechanisms to consider. But certainly CO2 gets lost in the discussion, having been demonstrated as more of a benefit by far (check out the video on the “Plants Need CO2” Web site discusses the benefit to China), and only circumstantial evidence that it’s a causitive factor in global warming.

Maybe Al Gore can start trading CFC Credits instead of Carbon Credits; can there be that much money in it?

Setting aside whether Lu is right or wrong, it will be interesting to see how those invested in CO2 C/T industry (RC, etc), will react to this. I bet they will say that (1) Lu is not a climate scientist, and (2) this paper was not peer reviewed by climate scientists. The question is — will such attacks stick notw that the press undersatnds how the Team has rigged the peer review process?

in his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.
so in 50 years time we are going to put out more cfcs again to stop the cooling trend?

I have said before that I am a ‘Discovery channel’ watching no nothing but.
The flux in the earths magnetic field image looked just like the Ozone hole in the north pole image.
It would stand to reason that the north and south poles/holes in the magnetic doughnut that surrounds earth would let in more cosmic/solar rays and thus deplete the ozone does it not?
Not being a scientist I don’t know the effect a magnetic field would have at also deflecting heat but I am sure the massive dynamo at the centre of our earth and its effect on climate has to be explored more.

Btw, is there somewhere one can see a table of estimated man-made C02 emissions by year from 1850-2008? It did strike me as a little facile to suggest that C02 emissions from 1850-1950 had little effect without taking into account relative yearly levels of emissions.

Could you please provide a little more in the way of scientific details rather than vague but rather overwhelming claims?

“The climate in the Arctic and Antarctic atmospheres has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact.”

“As well, there is no solid evidence that the global warming from 1950 to 2000 was due to CO2. Instead, Lu notes, it was probably due to CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays.” — “No solid evidence”? Huh? “was probably” or is?

How does his work devalue the theories of greenhouse gases? How does his theory extend to cover the entire globe? This is a rather extreme claim… it needs something more than “he says” to back it up. This is an irresponsible post. Put some meat behind it.

Are cosmic rays so selective as to only interact with CFC and ozone and not with water molecules in the atmosphere?

If the cosmic rays destroy the CFCs, how can the CFCs destroy the ozone layer? In any case, the concentration of CFC’s in the atmosphere has decreased significantly since it was addressed 20 years ago with the Montreal Protocol.

So, if he is so sure about his hypothesis, why does he say that the temperature will start rising again around 2050 since the concentration of CFCs will still be decreasing and more CFC’s will get destroyed by cosmic rays? If in fact his theory is true, the effect will be minimal since the concentration of CFCs will be less and hopefully the sun will be active by then and will repulse more cosmic rays coming this way.

Not cosmic rays! Didn’t that nut Svensmark try to pawn off the idea that cosmic rays are behind low level cloud formation??? He even managed to convince that traitor Kirkby at CERN to run an experiment partially based on the work of him and his denier team! Now we have some denier nut saying that cosmic rays are causing ozone holes, when we all know the science on that has already been settled!

Where’s the CRUtape Letter team when you really need them? Cosmic rays again! I love it. Svensmark will be vindicated in the end. I hope he is doing well.

>> Ray (09:59:12) :
If the cosmic rays destroy the CFCs, how can the CFCs destroy the ozone layer? <<

It's not CFCs that destroy the ozone, it's chlorine. The CFC/ozone theory claims that chlorine gets into the stratosphere as a component of the CFC molecule. I believe chlorine is the 3rd most common element in the oceans. I wonder why oceanic chlorine can't also reach the stratosphere? It was an amazing coincidence that the CFC/ozone theory came about just as the patent on Freon-12 expired.

Yes I recently read a MSM report just prior to Copenhagen where one of the antartic resreachers said that there would be rapid warming after the ozone hole healed itself later on. Googling ozone layer healing warming gets you a long list including

Published by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, a coalition of experts that co-ordinates research in the region, the report has been published to give negotiators in Copenhagen the most up-to-date science available. ”Everything is connected – Antarctica may be a long way away but it is an important part of the Earth’s system,” said Colin Summerhayes, the executive director of SCAR.

But its a report not a peer reviewed published study and with a very timely release so motives could be questioned.

“…Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate…” CO2 is now at its largest growth rate? Since when, I wonder? NOAA’s information for Mauna Loa shows what appears to be a linear relationship from 1960 to the present here:

which is less than indicative of the “largest growth rate.” If there is a difference, it is not readily discernible from the graph, a condition which I would expect from such a statement.

The question becomes: where did Professor Lu get his data, and where was it collected? For example, did the “growth rate” dramatically increase upon siting the measurement station near an urban center, dairy farm, other volcano that is currently erupting?

Well it is pretty remarkable that someone can come out of the blue and simply claim that “it ain’t CO2″.

It is amazingly remarkable that such a paper was allowed to be published. Now, it does state there was warming, and it was human caused although by a different model than CO2, so it may have slipped by the CRU crew unnoticed. But it does seem to indicate that, post Climategate, the “peer reviewed literature” is allowing at least alternate theories for the warming to be published.

Of course, I wonder what data that shows warming was used, that this theory accounts for. If it matches the “value added” data, it could end up being invalidated. Once the raw data is located, gathered, properly adjusted by non-biased methods, and tallied up, this theory may account for far more warming than there actually was. Heck, maybe we’ll find out the trees weren’t lying with their “divergence problem” and there could actually have been some cooling in that period.

Still, it is a non-CO2 model, and if it matches the temp data the CRU crew uses to “prove” CO2-based AGW then it could prove useful, and welcome.

Weather update: More global warming falling in Central PA. And this theory is predicting a 50 year cooling phase? I might have to invest in a “global warming machine” to get groceries. Maybe some global warming shoes as well.

Oh, that’s easy. Just step outside on a daily basis for at least 30 years.
And, if you’re living in most of the USA, you can feel it when you drive it as your SUV careens towards the nearest snow-encrusted ditch.

Enduser (10:03:02)
As I recall, the ozone-warming theory originated with Kelly Bundy for the purpose of winning the beauty contest in Married With Children, Spring Break II. While the theory might not have undergone strict peer-review, it is cited frequently by eminent climate-scientists to explain “the anomalous cooling of Antarctica”. As with most theories of these eminent scientists, it is invertible.

ScienceDaily (Mar. 29, 2007) — A burst of protons from the Sun in 1859 destroyed several times more ozone in Earth’s atmosphere than did a 1989 solar flare that was the strongest ever monitored by satellite, a new analysis finds.

Scientists involved in the study of Solar-Atmospheric Coupling by Electrons (SOLACE) will report on this finding at the Fall American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in San Francisco, December 15-19, 2000. They have determined that this coupling can create a significant amount of nitrogen oxides highlighting a new aspect of natural ozone destruction.”http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/12/001215082423.htm

“Ozone Layer Burned by Cosmic Rays

NASA satelliteCosmic conspiracy. Cosmic rays could be a major contributor to ozone destruction over Antarctica.
Cosmic rays may be enlarging the hole in the ozone layer, according to a study appearing in the 13 August print issue of PRL.”http://focus.aps.org/story/v8/st8

Let me be the first to establish the Cosmic Ray Credits market. All Galactics Cosmic Ray emitters will be forced to pay a tax on their Cosmic Ray emissions that target this quadrant of the galaxy. They will of course be allowed to purchase Cosmic Ray offsets by lowering their CR emissions to other parts of the galaxy.

Too late! I just got word that Rajendra Pachauri and Al Gore have partnered to innovate this market along with a consortium of Green companies.
Shiny
Ed

I recently read that the ozone hole was responsible for the anomalous cooling of Antarctica. Now this guy says that the ozone hole is responsible for warming.

The abstract says:

The cosmic-ray driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces has been proposed as a new mechanism for the formation of the polar ozone hole. Here, experimental findings of dissociative electron transfer reactions of halogenated molecules on ice surfaces in electron-stimulated desorption, electron trapping and femtosecond time-resolved laser spectroscopic measurements are reviewed. It is followed by a review of the evidence from recent satellite observations of this new mechanism for the Antarctic ozone hole, and all other possible physical mechanisms are discussed. Moreover, new observations of the 11 year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling and the seasonal variations of CFCs and CH4 in the polar stratosphere are presented, and quantitative predictions of the Antarctic ozone hole in the future are given. Finally, new observation of the effects of CFCs and cosmic-ray driven ozone depletion on global climate change is also presented and discussed.

and his previous paper showing an ozone/cosmic ray link said:

This Letter reports reliable satellite data in the period of 1980–2007 covering two full 11-yr cosmic ray (CR) cycles, clearly showing the correlation between CRs and ozone depletion, especially the polar ozone loss (hole) over Antarctica. The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the CR-driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone hole. Moreover, this mechanism predicts one of the severest ozone losses in 2008–2009 and probably another large hole around 2019–2020, according to the 11-yr CR cycle.

Interestingly, on the NASA website (ask an astrophysicist) says:

Note added in 2001 August: It is thought that man-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), such as Freon, are the major destroyer of the ozone layer. The prevailing theory is that ultraviolet light breaks down CFCs, releasing active chlorine, which destroys ozone molecules. However, a recent study suggests that cosmic rays may also break down CFCs. If this is correct, cosmic rays do play a part in creating ozone holes, but only because there are man-made CFC molecules for them to break down.

That’s not tortured logic, John – it would altogether be a system with a negative feedback. And systems with a negative feedback always reach an equilibrium. The AGW crowd loves to hypothesize about positive feedbacks that would lead to runaway effects thus causing the catastophy but the very existence of earth as an inhabitable planet is prove enough that there must be negative feedbacks that stabilize the climate. Granted, it might go up and down a little but it’s always rolling back into a local minimum. Get familiar with control circuits i would suggest.

O.K. Here goes. CR going through the atmosphere cause the release of free electrons. These can recharge (inert to Ozone) halogen species, such as CFC, HCFC, HCl or ClONO2 into Cl- or Cl2. These species are photolyzed by uv light generating Cl atoms (that is chlorine radical). Chlorine radicals attack ozone and generate the oxychlorine radical that also attacks ozone, giving the catalytic cycle.

Cl(.) + O3-> OCl(.) + O2

OCl(.) + O3 -> Cl(.) + 2 O2.

So cosmic rays increase the amount of photolyzable chlorine’s. So an increase in CR = increase in Cl(.) and so O3 goes down

Implication of a drop in ozone. The top of the atmosphere cools, as less IR and uv is absorbed by ozone is absorbed.
The lower atmosphere warms up as more IR/uv gets through the ozone layers.
Result. CFC’s potentate the effects of CR’s in causing a differential temperature gradient in the atmosphere.
Low CR mean low Cl(.) means more O3 and low Earth temp (but higher stratosphere temps); but high CR means more Cl(.), less O3=Global warmins (stratosphere cooling).
These effects will continue until all the CFC have gone; which is about 60 years with a t1/2 of about a decade.

It seems we are all within the vast universe of Climate Science. The old school resists new ideas and change because they threaten egos and careers. But darn those new planets and galaxies just keep poping up.

If I am not mistaken, when the sun is strongest, cosmic rays are weakest. So explain how the strongest sun in centuries allowed significant enough cosmic rays to affect the CFCs and thus the Ozone and finally the temperature. Sounds fishy if you ask me. It may be in a journal, but it just does not jive. It is about as likely as doubling CO2 will result in 11C warming.

I find that first article pertinent. Also, from that article, how they determined how much of the ozone layer was destroyed:

“Models using this energy total showed that 3.5 times more ozone was destroyed in the 1859 episode than in that of 1989.”

Shouldn’t be too hard to prove given that they observed the burst in 1989, but this is interesting because perhaps CFCs augment the depletion process wrt solar flares? Perhaps that blast in 1859 wasn’t nearly as effective as they modeled it to be?

Understand. Right now the IPCC believes that half of the 7,000 MMT’s of man-made CO2 emissions are absorbed into land/sea sinks. IF you accept that, then you should accept that man-made CO2 emissions did not go over 3,500 MMT’s of CO2 until after 1960. There was stabile or slightly decreasing temperatures from 1945 to 1975, so to believe Man was a factor in rising global temps from 1850 to 1940 doesn’t make sense, although I am sure the warmers could easily come up with a good answer.

We all know it was the invisible flying penguins who snuck into our houses at night, sucked the freon out of our fridges and then flew to the antarctic in mid winter where they belched it all into the stratosphere; which caused ozone depletion. It wasn’t the lack of sun light or the inherent instability of the ozone molecule; or something for which their was a believable mechanism for it to get there, certainly not!

After all we know that the ozone whole only started to exist when CFC’s were around don’t we? No? At least we know that chlorine atoms can only come from CFCs don’t we?

I think CFCs were the test case for AGW. A way to test run the system and learn just what degree of deception and manipulation was possible.

Like a number of other events that have been publisized by WUWT, this peer-reviewed paper in Physics Reports will I expect not be the straw that finally breaks the back of the AGW ”green religion” camel. But every straws counts, and this feels like a big one. More big straws, please. . . . .

What I want to know is how a substance that is used to keep my beer cold is now to blame for making my beer warm when its not in the fridge. This sounds like one more of the rope-a-dope “warming causes cooling” mantras… only here its coolant becomes warmant

The atomic weight of any CFC molecule makes it too heavy to rise in the atmosphere to the level of the ozone layer.

H20 & CO2 are much lighter in molecular weight than any CFC molecule and H2O & CO2 are barely measurable in the upper atmosphere.

Like DDT, CFCs help the developing world. The miracles of CFC is food preservation and DDT kills disease carrying pests. Both of these miracles of science have been taken away from humanity by the anti-science and anti-human population growth scare mongers among us.

Henrik Svensmark has the definative theory regarding cosmic radiation. No double talk or scientific mumbo jumbo. Just plain and simple cause and effect observable by anyone with a drop of common sense.

Implication of a drop in ozone. The top of the atmosphere cools, as less IR and uv is absorbed by ozone is absorbed.
The lower atmosphere warms up as more IR/uv gets through the ozone layers.
Result. CFC’s potentate the effects of CR’s in causing a differential temperature gradient in the atmosphere.
Low CR mean low Cl(.) means more O3 and low Earth temp (but higher stratosphere temps); but high CR means more Cl(.), less O3=Global warmins (stratosphere cooling).
These effects will continue until all the CFC have gone; which is about 60 years with a t1/2 of about a decade.

So, should we expect a stronger effect in the NH, given that the great majority of CFCs were released in the NH? How long does it take for complete mixing of CFCs between the NH and SH?

There are several problems with this new theory, as there are with the old one about ozoe depletion by CFCs:

1) The study by R. FAbian, S.A. Borders, and S. penkett, “Halocarbons in the Stratosphere” Nature (Dec. 24, 1981) showed CFCs levels go up to 32 km (F-12) at 10 pptv, and to 26-29 km (F-11 and CF3Br) with 0.1 pptv. It is well known that CFCs are not dissociatred by UVB, and only by UVC because their strong molecular bonds.

2) UVC are not found below 40 km altitude because they are entirely abosrbed by O2. So stratospheric CFC do not reach UVC heights, they are not being dissociated by UVB, so they are not releasing chlorine (they never did).

3) According to studies made by the Crista-SPAS project (NASA/Wuppertal University) since the early 90s, they found there was “a Freon-11 hole in Antarctica”, almost no CFCs there. They used Freon-11 as a marker for their studies.

4) The ozone hoe begins forming and manifesting itself as soon as the Polar Vortex starts forming round mid July. By early August (no sun there yet) ozone levels begis to descrease. Strongs winds inside the vortex makes O3 molecules collide with each others reverting to O2 (O3 + O3 = 3 O2) releasing 64 kcl/mol. Thatextra heat contributes to more stirring in the stratopshere and more ozone destruction. The cause is totally dynamical and no chemistry is involved.

However, three “scientists” got a Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1995 for having saved mankind from a terrible danger! A precedent to Al Gore’s Nobel prize.

Didn’t someone publish a paper a few years ago that stated that CFCs aren’t responsible for ozone depletion ? In the last few months I remember reading that the closing of the ozone hole would actually increase the greenhouse effect . Except that I seem to remember that the the ozone holes were supposed to allow more light to reach the surface , thereby increasing the greenhouse effect . After all , didn’t the discovery of the ozone holes over the poles circa 1985 really kick off the whole AGW thing in the first place ? Except that in my reading I found that the ozone hole over Antarctica was first noted around 1954 . I am so confused ….

Compared to physicists, climate scientists are primitive stone age hunters and gatherers. It will be interesting to read what Svensmark and Kirkby have to say about this. Does anybody know how Henrik is doing since he collapsed on TV?

Not so. With sufficient damping, they will, without it, they can oscillate wildly. Think of a car without shock absorbers. Bounces all over the place. Around a midpoint, but still a rough ride.

I thought the ozone hole was first noticed by some Dutch scientists in the early 50’s, before substantial use of CFC’s. Think it was in Science News, before they went into the AGW tank. As there isn’t a lot of mixing of NH and SH air (or didn’t use to be, before someone needed it to explain things) and most of the CFC’s came from the NH, there is a small problem of how all that Freon made it down to Penguinland and clobbered the ozone, but our soon-to-starve PB’s still have some.

That’s the problem of not being a climate scientist. They can understand things that don’t make sense.

ATTENTION climate acolytes: At noon today in the village square will be a ritual burning of old refrigerators and their Gaia destroying gasses. Bring your old (or new) refrigerator to throw on the pile and join the festive dancing and shrieking to awaken Gaia and let her know our sacrifice!

“Harry (10:26:02) :
Nope. This isnt going to work. We cant extort money and power over CFC’s.”

Why not? It was done once already. Does anyone remember what was about to happen re- patents when the ozone hole became a catastrophe in progress?

I don’t really know what to make of Lu’s study; it sounds like he’s found a statistical correlation, but it isn’t clear to me that he’s describing a specific mechanism. Considering that “cosmic rays” are hardly homogeneous — a mix of assorted high speed sub-atomic particles and ions — I can see cosmic rays having all sorts of effects.

Statistics are important tools to complement the scientific method, but too many people are treating statistics are not science by themselves.

I believe that 0.2C per decade you quoted is the longer term trend from 1980 to 1998, not the last ten years. Yet, as everyone knows, the warming stopped after 1998. Now, it is the period from 2002 that Lu is referring to when he talks about a cooling. So, Lu’s argument is not contradicted.

So, should we expect a stronger effect in the NH, given that the great majority of CFCs were released in the NH? How long does it take for complete mixing of CFCs between the NH and SH?”

Exactly so, he has a very nice SH, NH and global temp vs model which shows just that. Explains:-

“It is therefore significant to have more careful studies of the effects of CFCs and CRE-driven ozone depletion on global climate. For this purpose, the southern hemisphere (SH), northern hemisphere (NH) and global surface temperatures are plotted together with the EESC from 1850 to 2009 in Fig. 21. The EESC data prior to 1970 were not measured [37] and were hence calculated by extrapolating the observed data of 1970-1980, assuming an identical growth rate. Strikingly, it is shown that except the short-period large fluctuations, the SH, NH and global surface temperatures did not rise appreciably (within 0.1 oC) from 1850 to 1950, during which period CO2 was the dominant greenhouse gas and increased linearly. In contrast, all of the surface temperatures started to increase around 1950, when the EESC started to be significant. Since then, the surface temperatures closely followed the variation trend of the EESC and increased by ~0.15 oC/decade from 1950 to 2002~2005. Remarkably, the EESC has been estimated to peak in the stratosphere around 2000 by assuming a delay (t1/2) of 6 years with a width of 3 years from the peak in 1994 measured at the surface [37]. Correspondingly, the observed SH, NH, global surface temperatures have a turnover in 2002, 2005 and 2005, respectively, and have clearly decreased by 0.22, 0.15 and 0.16 oC to 2008, respectively. In contrast, the CO2 level has kept increasing with the highest rate [139]. Most strikingly, it is found that the observed global surface temperature variations (delta)T (relative to the 1980 value) have an excellent linear dependence on the EESC values (normalized to the 1980 value), as shown in Fig. 22(a). A relationship, (delta)T=-0.31+0.30*EESC (oC) with a correlation coefficient R as high as 0.89 and the probability (R=0) P<0.0001, is obtained from the linear fit."

There is a cyclic nature to atmospheric dust as there is with many natural substances. Chlorine is a likely candidate for such cycles regardless of the fact that chlorine is also a component of old refrigerant gas when broken down by sunlight. Since chlorine could well be cyclic, the increase in chlorine at the poles may be a natural phenomenon, not the result of increased CFC’s. It has not been monitored long enough to determine whether or not this is the case.

This finding can not be allowed to stand. Controlling CFC emissions is relatively easy, whereas controlling CO2 emissions requires massive government intervention and control, and astronomical new taxes levied on the entire economy and everyone in it.

Even though there is no verifiable empirical evidence that CO2 controls the Earth’s temperature, a simple thought experiment will confirm the statement in my first sentence above:

Since this paper argues that CFCs have a measurable effect on the global temperature and CO2 does not, the G-8 nations should promptly rescind their $200 billion promise to pay for the effects of AGW, and all future CO2-related payments, and disband the UN’s IPCC. CFC emissions can be calibrated to provide a Goldilocks climate – not too hot, not too cold, but ju-u-u-st right.

Sorry, Dr Lu, but it looks like your hypothesis is toast. Prepare for a counterattack by everyone who thinks their check is already in the mail.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t the aurorae strong contributors to ozone depletion? We have just concluded over 50 years of strong geo-magnetic activity and now with the sun in a state of decline on many (all?) levels by comparison with that 50 year period. Shouldn’t the solar activity part of ozone depletion also fall off?

Robert Wood:
Indeed it could also follow that a hole in the ozone layer may have always existed to a greater or lesser degree because the earths polarised magnetic fields effect on it, has always existed to a greater or lesser degree.Possible?
To save me pulling apart my hi fi speakers in a ad hoc experiment does anyone know if a magnetic field can alter radiated heat on a thermometer?
many thanks.

Here is the title…
Solar change and climate: an update in the light
of the current exceptional solar minimum
BY MIKE LOCKWOOD
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire, UK
Space Science and Technology Department, Rutherford Appleton….

I have read the article and it is obvious that Lockwood is not a big climategate fan and has a few words to say about the internet etc etc…

however he does refer to a paper by Giles Harrison, Dept of Meteorology, University of Reading….R. Giles Harrison

NOW, according to Harrison…in his conclusion he states…”The evidence presented shows that there are Cosmic Ray-induced cloud changes that cannot be attributed to solar irradiance changes”.

This is basically confirming Henrik Svensmark’s theory, which in a nutshell is ….lower atmosphere clouds are “seeded” by cosmic rays (charged particles). These clouds cool the earth. When the sun is inactive (no sunspots) as it is at the moment, its magnetic field is weak and cosmic rays get through to the earth and seed clouds and hence cool the planet….this is what Svensmark thinks is happening now…we are in a cooling phase.

In his concluding remarks Lockwood states…(P-21).. “The direct influence of cosmic rays on cloud albedo is much harder to put in context. “

He then goes on to say…” What is certain is that the uncertainties and lack of homogeneity in long datasets is a real problem for the evaluation of any such effect (i.e. for quantifying its contribution or finding if it exists at all).”

The net effect of all this is that despite what Richard Black at the Beeb states, Lockwood’s paper has not put “a large, probably fatal nail” in Svensmark’s intriguing and elegant hypothesis…..

Lu’s work now puts the cat amongst the pigeons…this is getting really interesting !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think that the climate is even more complex then Cosmic Rays and cfcs. It is pinning a new belief on something. While they may play a role it is a bit the same as CO2, correlation does not mean causation…

I appreciate however the guts it takes now-a-days to say duh it is not CO2…

So props to that. Not even I can say 100% that it isn’t CO2, I still think it may have some warming effect though it is close to negligible…

Still interesting thought in the fact that you now have 2 people coming to the Cosmic rays…

“Could you please provide a little more in the way of scientific details ….this is an irresponsible post”

Thinking and being isn’t enough, you have to read, too. It will cost you $31.50 though. What you see above is a U of Waterloo press release. WUWT puts highly topical stuff out there fast – the details also are made available as soon as.. I hope you complained loudly over the past decade or so that “little..in the way of scientific details” were provided (they were hidden and even destroyed) by the hockey team’s output in their papers and irresponsible posts, or were you in the cheering section? Here is the link provided above to the details – it is a peer-reviewed scientific journal – I know this is important to you.

Well from reading (struggling) through it, my impression is that his case for the mechanism of ozone depletion is a lot stronger and more direct than that for warming / cooling. For the latter, there is no quantitative calculation, just the observation that ozone and CFC change in sync with temperature. Declining stork populations and birth rates…

“I’m sure William Connolly is already scheming on how to spin this on the Cosmic Ray pages Wikipedia pages”

Too late, you can easily check the history/talk page of the article – the Climate Cabal on wikipedia has been *ahem* correcting the cosmic ray article for years now.

I sort of have a habit of checking every talk page related to climate change and I’ve never once been dissapointed – even the most esoteric of articles (like specific, practically unknown scientists who oppose AGW theory) will be altered in the most biased of ways by them.

OT: Right now as I’m writing, on Swedish TV, there is a show called “Snillen spekulerar”.
I’m not sure if it’s broadcasted in other countries but it’s the teaditional interview/debate with all the present years science Nobel Price laureates.
Well, the host actually brought up Climategate early in the show and a fairly interresting duscussion followed. I bet one of the two physics laureates is more than a bit AGW-sceptical. :)
I’ll post a link as soon as the show is out on svt.se! It’s in English. :)

(See the difference? 30 is much bigger than 1.6. Get that “poorly understood” bit wrong and it will dwarf Anthropogenic 1.6)

(Other things, which cancel out may not cancel out, if you get it slightly wrong to dwarf 1.6 – either make it bigger or smaller)

So AGW does a whole lot of plusses and minuses and comes up with a figure of 1.6 for the last 50 years, which happens to be the Anthropogenic portion – the rest of it (much of it such as clouds and solar poorly understood) is in PERFECT BALANCE. Not only that it will REMAIN IN PERFECT BALANCE FOR THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE, while the the only unbalancing portion, 1.6

How could any reasonable person believe AGW when looking at it from this angle?

After so many years of being programmed to accept that CO2 is the mother of all problems on earth, surely he did not see that it’s the Anthropogenic CO2 that causes the sun to be less active. That it’s the Anthropogenic CO2 that helps the cosmic ray concentration go up. That it’s the Anthropogenic CO2 that is the driver here and no other argument will be accepted or acceptable.

Looked over the ozone paper, not expert enough to criticise but does make sense to me. Does help to explain why even though the CFC content of the atmosphere is going down the ozone levels are cyclic. Downloaded the global warming paper and hope to read tonight.

As any good professor, he can also publish the same material in different journals by slightly adding more or less info. After all, it’s not the quality that counts, it’s the quantity, when grants are involved. Hard reality, but true…. at least this paper is free.

This is very useful and interesting, but it in no way disproves Svenmark’s thesis (and mechanistic evidence for), nor does it discount the need for an accurate characterization of the surface temperature record. It’s possible, though presumably unlikely, that there’s little, if any, unnatural temperature increase to account for. We just can’t know for sure until there’s been an audit of temperature records and adjustment methods.

>> Ray (09:59:12) :
If the cosmic rays destroy the CFCs, how can the CFCs destroy the ozone layer? <<

It’s not CFCs that destroy the ozone, it’s chlorine. The CFC/ozone theory claims that chlorine gets into the stratosphere as a component of the CFC molecule. I believe chlorine is the 3rd most common element in the oceans. I wonder why oceanic chlorine can’t also reach the stratosphere? It was an amazing coincidence that the CFC/ozone theory came about just as the patent on Freon-12 expired.

I recall, but can’t find it quickly, a paper published some months ago by JPL showing that the reaction between chlorine and ozone under stratospheric conditions is an order of magnitude slower than was previously assumed, and thus cannot account for more than a fraction of the ozone depletion.

I am not convinced by CFCs . I suspect that total volume may not be sufficient (even if ozone is affected), anyway ozone variability is a natural process.
Main stumbling block is how to explain 1910-1940 steep increase and particularly the medieval warm period.

Very much my line of thought. They throw in their assumed positive feedbacks and tipping points but well… could it be that that’s a last-ditch effort to complete the sale? Wait, wait, i’ll throw in thawing permafrost for free, does it convince you now? The BBC just offers an extra “Scare the kids” piece… convinced now? It’s disgusting. Here’s the link, it’s a new low for the beeb:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8426269.stm

Not to counter Lu’s conclusion but there is one other remote possible explanation of this phenomena. Could be both are occurring simultaneously.

Looking at the pictures of the earth with increasing ozone hole from 1981-1999, this coincides with the rare, extreme solar wind experienced throughout this period between 1946-2002 from hyper magnetic activity on the sun. The ozone destruction could also be explained from the migration of increased ions in the high atmosphere by high velocity solar wind particles warped to the South Pole by Earth’s magnetic field thereby depressing normal ozone levels.

If the sun ever enters this hyper mode again while CFC’s are still suppressed and the ozone begins to grow again, this might an alternate explanation.

I will sin again, against the creed of the Holy Neo-Settled and post modern science (and since Climate Gate, post traumatic science):
1.If you get CFCs up there tell if you used an elevator or a ladder to get them there, they are too heavy for that, unless you don´t believe in Saint Newton´s Gravity.
2.UV produces ozone and,…. positively charged protons (hydrogen nucleii- not just little pebbles you know-) REACT reducing ozone and producing WATER. BTW, easier than on the just discovered by NASA process on the moon.

[REPLY – We do need to bear in mind that the lower troposphere is a conveyor belt (a series of them, actually) with the upper troposphere. So what is down below gets circulated to up above, and then back down, etc. ~ Evan]

Those of you who dispute the nature of the ozone hole should come to my place (NZ) for a day or so. A hour outside in summer on an overcast day and you might think again.

See, that’s one huge difference between the Ozone hole issue and global warming. I can’ t see any difference in temperatures or climate since my childhood. But there is a HUGE difference in the amount of time people can stay outside unprotected since I was a kid. The UV rays we get here are ridiculous (and dangerous) now.

The ozone hole is very, very real and very, very new. If you are in denial (hee, hee) about it, then it is easily tested, as I say. Take trip to NZ in summer and get yourself good and burnt “proving” how wrong we are.

The CFC mechanism might look odd to you, but as a chemist I know it makes perfect sense. The nature of catalysts is that they do not need to be present in large amounts, so the heaviness of CFCs is not a fatal flaw.

Compare also the difference in the world’s ability to find a solution. Within a very short time the production of CFCs was cut. Because the world’s scientists actually agreed and sealed the deal in no time. No need for ridiculous huge conferences.

Those of you who still want to believe the CFC/ozone thing is a stitch-up ought to look at them moon landings. They’re pretty fishy I tell you!

If the headline is CFCs, then the obvious (if rather simple) question is, how did climate vary before there were CFCs, or humans to make CFCs? Do the proponents of this idea require a flat preindustrial climate, as the CO2 AGW theory does?

The ionosphere and its interaction with cosmic rays, solar wind, solar / earth magnetism seems very likely a factor in climate – but its hard to believe it is the dominant factor. For instance any total theory of climate that ignores the role of ocean where most climate heat energy resides, and the cyclical dynamics thereof, must be precarious.

Prof Lu’s theory ought to tie in somehow with that posted a couple of months back by Erl Happ, “the climate engine”, about the ionosphere, cosmic rays, ice crystals, ozone etc.

You might just be able to ignore everything except the oceans, but you cant ignore the oceans.

It’s not CFCs that destroy the ozone, it’s chlorine. The CFC/ozone theory claims that chlorine gets into the stratosphere as a component of the CFC molecule. I believe chlorine is the 3rd most common element in the oceans. I wonder why oceanic chlorine can’t also reach the stratosphere? It was an amazing coincidence that the CFC/ozone theory came about just as the patent on Freon-12 expired.
yes and not to say that cfc was mainly use in north hemisphere but mainly destroy ozone in south hemisphere.
Also there is a large natural production of CH3Cl
and much more ozone destroyer
and the ch3br http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/CS/article.asp?doi=a900201d
since those 2 gaz are produced naturally by the ocean and the ocean is not rare close antarctica….
This does not contradict M.Lu work it just give a hood way for the Don Quichotte that get the pretention to fight against nature (LOL)

Tom_R (10:18:06) : Trouble is that chorine is an oxidizer not a reducer. BTW there was a chilean volcano which was erptuing last year expelling thousand of tons of hydrochloric acid. What a beauty! and we tiny microscopic parasits on earth worrying about our supposed influence on climate…Give me a break!
WATCH THIS (COMMON SENSE, CHEMICALLY PURE):

“…Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate…” CO2 is now at its largest growth rate? Since when, I wonder? NOAA’s information for Mauna Loa shows what appears to be a linear relationship from 1960 to the present here:

which is less than indicative of the “largest growth rate.” If there is a difference, it is not readily discernible from the graph, a condition which I would expect from such a statement.”

Why? The claim is from 1850, not 1960. But if you look again to NOAA you’ll find that the annual mean growth rate is increasing. Look at the figures in the list box on the right inhttp://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

If you people think that Prof. Lu is out of the woodwork, please think again. There is no need to read his paper, he is out on a limb having committed the sin to publish heretic material before. See comment # 363 on

The atomic weight of any CFC molecule makes it too heavy to rise in the atmosphere to the level of the ozone layer.

That’s what I used to think too, until I read up on it. (CFC’s and ozone holes weren’t a big issue way back when I got my Physics degree, global cooling was dying and acid rain was picking up then.)

I’ll put it this way. You know how a bumblebee flies? Systems have size limits, our “ordinary” physics stops working as you get small. At the bee’s size, the little forces between the air molecules are important, to it air is somewhat thick, viscous, it’s wing motions are like something much larger trying to swim through water.

At the molecular level, air is soup. Now with a big pot of homemade vegetable beef soup, if you stir and let it settle then the bigger heavier pieces will tend to settle in the bottom. Except the atmosphere isn’t allowed to settle, it keeps moving, being stirred, churned. The big chunks do make it to the top. And they tend to stay there for awhile. Imagine a soup pot as tall as the Empire State Building. At the top it’s as thin as broth, at the bottom thicker than good chili, and it’s being stirred. How long would you expect a chunk of beef dropped in the top to take before it drops below the equivalent height of the ozone layer?

Hope I haven’t insulted you by making this too simple, this is my shorthand way of understanding it without delving deeply into the physics and maths. And I hope it helps you to understand it as well.

Point of minor disagreement: All the valid global temperature data I have seen indicates global cooling from 1940 to 1970. Therefore, the warming trend was more likely between 1970 and 2000 than from 1950 to 2000.

I went to Charly’s (13:30:16) link in RC and got a kick out of this line,

“This extension of his results to global warming is based purely on a correlation with CFC levels and is very dubious (for obvious reasons), whether it is reported in the ‘prestigious’ Physics Reports or not. – gavin]”

Do you then agree that even though churned and mixed, there will never be a higher concentration of a heavy gas at high altitude than at the surface? The exception being a case where the heavy molecules are CREATED at high altitudes.

Svensmark and Lu should should offer an apology to these global warming influences immediately and accept that these influences deserve their fair share for inducing global warming.

Of course, nobody said it was gonna be easy divvying up 1.0 Deg. F. global warming in 150 years between 25 global warming wannabe’s. That’s 1/40th of one degree per century per influence. Okay, that’s not a lot to lay claim to. But who said life is fair?

The argument regarding CFCs versus Chlorine, seems to be that chlorine is so reactive, that it can’t get from the oceans or your swimming pool to the upper atmosphere, without reacting with something that removes it in precipitation.
CFCs on the other hand, being Fluorine compounds tend to be extremely stable; which is not surprising since fluorine about leads the pack in eating anything else.
So CFCs are the carrier pigeon that gets the Chlorine into the right place in the upper atmosphere. I always assumed that solar UV broke up the CFCs, but maybe their photon energies aren’t high enough Cosmetic rays would certainly have the punch to do it.
But then you get into issues that Leif has raised before in regard to Svensmark’s process. Is the CR flux enough to create enough clouds or bust up enough CFCs.

I’ve always assumed that ozone holes like the polar regions since the sun goes out every six months or so, so you don’t get the short UV to break down the O2, but then you don’t get the other photons that tend to destroy ozone. Some cosmic rays or solar charged particles can be steered to teh (magnetic) polar regions since they are charged particles.

It certainly is something else to look at. I can’t totally dismiss CO2, because I believe the LWIR capture mechanism is quite real; but so too is the same process in H2O. I just happen to thing that H2O via clouds simply negates any effect CO2 might have.

I agree with Leif that variations in the solar TSI just don”t explain anything much in the way of temperature change; but I happen to believe that the sun has much bigger effects via the magnetic fields and other soalr phenomenon. The TSI is just one of the energy links with earth.

I’m not so sure that Svensmark’s mechanism completely explains all of the global warming, via the CRs, but I certainly believe it is a significant interraction.
I don’t yet understand quite what Lu’s process really is; as others have said they wrote a lot of paragraphs with very little mechanics.

Do you then agree that even though churned and mixed, there will never be a higher concentration of a heavy gas at high altitude than at the surface?”

Wayne, with the greatest of respect, you are backing the wrong horse here. CFC’s and many halogenated hydrocarbons can destroy ozone as that can catalyze is destruction via the radical/oxy-radical cycle. Long lived, chemically inert, water insoluble, CFC’s were only thought to be destroyed by hard uv and that only exists in the upper atmosphere. The amount of CFC is low, the higher up you go, but as pointed out it is there, in fact the distribution is first order with respect to altitude. These molecule are moving up and down.
The radical chemistry of ozone destruction is good, the maths is correct, the lab experiments are all in agreement, atmospheric sampling shows where they are.
the olny major disagreement is the rate at which they are destroyed and the rate at which chain breakers like HCl are generated.

This paper shows that CR increase the rate that CFC’s shed halogens as radicals, which may explain why CFC’s are disappearing faster than was first though (a good thing), but in doing so destroy ozone (which is bad) and also addresses what happens to the incoming ‘heat’ through the ‘ozone holes’. The data suggests that CR increase ozone loss and cause the formation of a differential temperature gradient, high cooling and lower heating.
This last part represents a “Popparian” falsifiable test for the hypothesis and you can be sure that people will be examining the recorded temperature differentials, CR and if they are lucky, ozone levels over the past few decades.

So please do not confuse the science behind the role of CFC’s in ozone depletion with CO2 driven AGW or the Montreal Protocol with Copenhagen.
CFC’s=bad is about a true as it can be.

I’ve previously conceded that the cosmic ray idea is plausible and might be a contributory factor in favourable circumnstances but I still have to put the oceans and the speed of the hydrological cycle in control.

One of the problems with the cosmic ray theory is the lack of correlation with the PDO phase shifts.

I can’t see anything that happens in the air as capable of pushing the oceans around.

Comparing different trends using the GISTEMP series we get:
15 year trend to 2009 = 0.17C per decade
20 year trend to 2009 = 0.19C per decade
30 year trend to 2009 = 0.16C per decade

Naturally it’s pointless to calculate a trend less than 15 years, for reasons which should be obvious. So, the world is currently warming by something in the region of 0.16 – 0.19C per decade. That is significant.

Those of you who dispute the nature of the ozone hole should come to my place (NZ) for a day or so. A hour outside in summer on an overcast day and you might think again.

See, that’s one huge difference between the Ozone hole issue and global warming. I can’ t see any difference in temperatures or climate since my childhood. But there is a HUGE difference in the amount of time people can stay outside unprotected since I was a kid. The UV rays we get here are ridiculous (and dangerous) now.

The ozone hole is very, very real and very, very new. If you are in denial (hee, hee) about it, then it is easily tested, as I say. Take trip to NZ in summer and get yourself good and burnt “proving” how wrong we are. “””

Well not so fast there Mooloo. I agree you can get a good sunburn there. I got a bit of one while out fishing in the BOI in March 2004.

But I also got plenty of the same, when I was growing up there as a kid over 60 years ago. So i don’t buy the claim that donut holes are new. Maybe some French guy in 1957/58 during the IGY said; I think I’ll look for ozone holes; well what he said went right by me , cause he said it in French; which is Greek to me.

But plenty of 1940/50/60 research gives indications that ozone holes have always been with us. The ground level UV which shifts both seasonally, and eratically over longer time scales, manifests itself in a change in the observed color temperature of the sun (at sea level), and that was long ascribed to changes in the UV part of the solar air mass one spectrum.

You Kiwi down there also do happen to have extremely clean air, in case nobody has noticed; that too can get you a good sunburn.

I do remember in 2004, when I got that shiny face; it hit me. OOoops, I fogot the sun block; anf that was a reaction to child hood memories; not some recent warning.

Well, well, all this stuff is really about the “end of the world”, but you know, we´ll witness the end of “your world” soon…Wait! I am not meddling in your local politics…I just mean that yesterday you had one more day to live and you lost it! and now, today, you are 24 hours closer, nearer to your personal armaggedon, so don´t care about those “serious things”, just live and let us live!

“Naturally it’s pointless to calculate a trend less than 15 years, for reasons which should be obvious. So, the world is currently warming by something in the region of 0.16 – 0.19C per decade. That is significant.”

Icarus, your posts are polite, but you do play numbers games in the guise of criticizing people for cherry picking data. The UAH does show a measurable trend of increased temps since 1979, but the bulk of of that trend is 1979-1998, with temps bouncing and possible slightly declining since 2002. The UAH data if anything invalidates most of the 1980s/1990s GISS and IPCC models. If you want to be fair as well as polite you should note that in your posts. But more importantly, what people like me are more interested in is what is the cause of the measurable increase since 1979? and how will temps behave in the future. Those are the relevant questions, and as of now, the GISS, CRU/UEA and IPCC models are bogus in explaining and predicting world temps. Skeptics like me will keep watching UAH, will keep demanding that GISS and UAE disclose their raw data and adjustment methodology. If you keep doing the same, I’d welcome your analysis, but you’ve got to quit leaving out data that is contrary to your opinions. To persuade people you’ve got to account for inconvenient data.

Here’s a blurb from the manufacturers of Luvox CR, a medication for treating OCD (Obessive Compulsive Disorder)…

“How does Once-A-Day LUVOX CR work?

LUVOX CR is a medicine known as an SSRI. That stands for Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor. The exact mechanism by which SSRIs work is unknown. SSRIs are thought to help restore the chemical balance of serotonin in the body. This is believed to help people by allowing the brain to send and receive messages better. In turn, this may reduce the symptoms that you experience.”

Notice the words “unknown” and “believed to.”

What!? Don’t these guys know? People are putting this stuff in their bodies and the best they can do is say “we think…

And yet some client scientists tell us about the absolutes of AGW. Perhaps I should see a climate scientist the next time I don’t feel well.

Thanks for the reply. No offence taken. I enjoy talking science always, whether correct or not (then I learn, trying to stay humble always).

I was not taking a side on CFCs. My point was, and you have to somewhat read behind my lines, that in the future, 10-30 years down the road, if mankind has clamped CFCs sufficient to continue their decline and the sun goes through another hyper magnetic state, it could come to pass that the ozone hole reappears without CFCs this time. The ozone hole was discovered during a period when both CFC were increasing and solar activity was maintaining its high level of activity. Could it not be feasible that we might find that it was the sun creating the hole, not CFCs? Getting rid of them is fine but feasibly may no be found (far future) to be the real cause. To me the answer is possibly.

I read many, many articles since the 70’s and following astronomy (and solar) closely since I’ve always seen this possibility.

First, several years back, while listening to a radio program, some guy called in and said that he had seen a NASA magazine wherein they had fired up a rocket and discovered a hole in the ozone layer. This was a 1938 issue, CFC’s where not invented till the 1950’s or used till the early 60’s. If this si true, CFS’s may havew little or nothing to do with an ozone hole that has been there since earth has, a hole largly or completly caused by sulfer compounds realeased by volcanoes which form a ring around the poles and eat up the ozone. Perhaps if someone out there can access any 1938 editions of NASA magazine you can confirm this. I wouldn’t be suprised if NASA learns of that they may “lose” that edition.

Second, 1850 was the end of the “Little Ice Age’, and 1979 was the end of the media “ice age scare”, so warming starting from those time frames may have nothing to do with ozone, CO2, or anything like that. Thus linking ozone with these events may be a cause and effect arror.
Note also that the above warming trend from 1979 may also simply be a natural phenominon having nothing to do with any gasses, and which being such a shrt period of time does not make a trend, since before that there was the ice age scare, and before that a warm period warmer than now, etc, in 2-3 decades long periods.

It’s worth looking at Lu’s abstract. The title of the paper is“Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion”
And that’s what the abstract is about, until you get to the last sentence:“Finally, new observation of the effects of CFCs and cosmic-ray driven ozone depletion on global climate change is also presented and discussed.”

That’s the paper Physics Reports thinks they’re publishing; AGW disproof is just an afterthought. But of course in the press release, it gets beaten up into a major finding.

So according to Lu, global warming DID have an anthropogenic cause ! CFCs, not CO2.

Good to know that if the world starts getting too cold again, we can just go back to using lotsa CFCs and warm the place up.

Kinda ironic that to “save the world” from cooling, certain smelly loonie lefty “back to nature” greenie types would have to start using aerosol underarm deodorants churned out in the millions by greedy capitalist corporations. :)

I can’t believe anyone is buying this CFC stuff. That was a scam from way back. CFC’s lifetime in the atmosphere & its supposed effect on ozone is all done by extrapolation of a few experiments into a global ozone model. My impression of the literature was that it was all playstation physics. I have never seen anything approaching causality from the CFC-Ozone hole crowd. Please point out any recent papers if I have missed something.

The newly discovered ozone connection looks to me like a typical fallback position. Well… let’s see… AGW is no longer credible, so, let’s jump back to our original proposal that industrialization is bad because of the CFC/Ozone relationship. You see, the answer is always austerity as the cure for the plague of humans. IT may be that the argument that justifies that opinion is about to change.

I’ve heard so many theories already (GHG, ENSO, Cosmic rays, Cosmic rays and CFC’s…) that I’m just sure science is not settled.
Wouldn’t it be possible to make a model for every theory and test them, to see wich one is correct…
is it that hard?

2. Much of the 87 page report details the chemistry and activation energies of Cosmic Rays (CR) interacting with the surface of ice particles.

This generates a series of reactions that result in Ozone depletion.

Lot’s of laboratory studies on the reactions included. Lu is presenting a different chemical pathway for Ozone destruction based on CR’s and not ultraviolet light.

It will be challenged on the chemistry along with correlation with the sunspot cycle. But a great deal of careful work went into proving the hypothesis.

While his evidence suggests a new mechanism for ozone depletion at the poles, I don’t see where the data leads to a global mechanism which is responsible for global heating and cooling.

Perhaps that was to get publicity and attention to this paper.

I thought page 45 had a good summary.

p45 [my additions]

[Cosmic-Ray-Driven-Electron-Reaction Model for Ozone Depletion (CRE)]

The CRE mechanism drastically differs from the photochemical model for stratospheric ozone depletion. The latter assumes that the sunlight photolysis of CFCs [Chlorofluorocarbons] in the upper tropical stratosphere, air transport and the subsequent heterogeneous chemical reactions of transported inorganic halogens on ice surfaces in PSCs [polar stratospheric clouds] are the three major processes for the activation of halogenated compounds into photoactive halogens.

In contrast, the CRE model believes that the in-situ CR-driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules including organic and inorganic molecules (CFCs, HCl, ClONO2, etc) adsorbed or trapped at PSC ice in the winter polar stratosphere is the key step to form the photoactive halogen species that then lead to the springtime ozone hole.

Nick Stokes (15:43:22) :
And that’s what the abstract is about, until you get to the last sentence:
“Finally, new observation of the effects of CFCs and cosmic-ray driven ozone depletion on global climate change is also presented and discussed.”

That’s the paper Physics Reports thinks they’re publishing; AGW disproof is just an afterthought. But of course in the press release, it gets beaten up into a major finding.

That is probably because your friends in AGW alarmist community made it almost impossible to publish anything that is critical of AGW in peer-reviewed literature. So they tried to sneak it in.

One can look at how volcanoes affect the stratosphere – first by warming it up in the short-term through volcanic particles intercepting solar energy at the level and then by cooling it off as the volcanic sulfate particles destroy/deplete Ozone which has less capacity then to intercept UV solar energy at the level. This also affects the surface obviously since there is a varying amount of solar energy making it to the surface.

“Global surface temperatures were obtained from the Climatic Research Unit of the School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia: the HadCRUT3 version, combined land and marine temperature anomalies on a 5° by 5° grid-box basis.”

Well, I guess they won’t challenge him on where he got the temperatures.

Anybody on this strand ever taken physics? How do we study elementary particles? In a Cloud Chamber, that’s how.
A Cloud Chamber is a device which contains air (or other gases) in which water vapor (or some other molecule) is present at over 100% concentration. The passage of ionized radiation through the chamber triggers the condensation of vapor into cloud trails. I have watched this happen, and it is spectacular.
The large-scale form of this activity is aircraft producing contrails (again water vapor condensing into clouds).
So what do you expect to happen when the radiation from the Sun decreases? There is less of a shield around the Earth and less retardation of incoming cosmic rays.
Therefore one would anticipate greater cloud formation.
I would not be surprised that there would be increased degradation of the various chlorinated molecules in the upper atmosphere as well, leading to a lessened effect on ozone, although I had not previously considered this possibility. There is no question about the chlorine role in reducing ozone to oxygen. There is also no question about the absorption of UV by ozone.
What puzzles me is the insistence that the minor variation of the Sun’s output has no effect on us. Just where do the people who deny the Sun’s influence think all of our energy comes from?
And I wish to remind the readers that we have seen variations in the light reflected from Mars and Pluto. If the incident light on the other planets varies in intensity, should not our own incident light energy vary also?

http://www.wv-hsta.org/uvproje/history.htm
“CFCs Invented – In 1928, an industrial chemist named T. Midgley was asked to develop a nonflammable, nontoxic compound to replace the hazardous compounds (such as ammonia) then used in home refrigerators. Within two days, he selected Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) as the ideal refrigerant. In a dramatic demonstration of its complete safety for living things, Midgley personally inhaled the compound.”
“CFC Usage Grows – During the 1950s, Chlorofluorocarbons came into widespread use in a variety of applications, particularly for refrigeration and later in air conditioning, spray cans, and foams, and as solvents. The Chlorofluorocarbons were hailed as miracle chemicals.”
“Ozone Hole Discovered – In 1985, scientists from the British Antarctic Survey reported their observations of a deepening depletion in the springtime ozone layer above Halley Bay, Antarctica. Their work was quickly confirmed by measurements from satellites and from other Antarctic research stations, including the South Pole (United States) and Syowa (Japan). The phenomenon became known as the “ozone hole.” The observed change in ozone was about 40% in 1985, as compared to projections of about 55 in 100 years, raising fears that ozone depletion may have been drastically underestimated.”

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/basics/2__Ozone_hole_1z0.html
“One of the most important scientific findings at the end of the last century was the discovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica. ”
“Since the 1970’s, measurements of stratospheric ozone have been made in Antarctica. These measurements show that the ozone concentration has fallen over time. There are many stories surrounding the discovery of the ozone hole.
The first measurements of really low ozone levels were made over Antarctica in 1985. The levels were so low that the scientists who made them thought they weren’t true, and that their instruments were faulty. It wasn’t until later, when new instruments were used, that these low values were found to be true. ”
“At the same time, ozone levels were being made from space aboard a satellite using an instrument called TOMS (Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer). This instrument also didn’t pick up the low ozone values because values recorded below an certain value were assumed to be errors. It was only later, when the raw data was reprocessed, that the results confirmed what nobody wanted to believe. “

“it does seem to fly in the face of Henrik’s theory (see The Cloud Mystery series on YouTube if you haven’t alread).”

I don’t know. Henrik has shown a correlation beween clouds and cosmic rays. That’s pretty solid. Henrik hasn’t yet clearly defined the mechanism in order to establish causality. Let me be clearer. While we think we understand the basic mechanism, the numbers don’t yet add up for the magnitude of the effect that is observed.

But I’m not quite getting the thrust of the article. We know that Lu wants to say that cosmic rays contribute to the ozone hole. Using his logic, we have more cosmic rays coming in now, so there should be more damage to the ozone hole. But I don’t get Lu’s point about cosmic ray induced warming or cooling. From the article above, it’s unclear what he is saying about that. It still seems possible that cosmic rays could cause ozone hole depletion while at the same time causing an increase in cloud formation.

It’s also clear that Lu wants to say that CFCs have caused warming. The part about CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays is clear as mud. Unless he is trying to say that the temperature rise before 1998 was a combination of low cosmic rays and high CFCs. Then we changed to a time of lowering CFCs and increasing cosmic rays, resulting in the current flattening trend. Apparently Lu believes that the current trend will now turn to down.

I think I need more information. I also wonder what the cabal is cooking up to discredit Lu.

Just sayin, and not necessarily a swipe at the article, but the real ozone hole doesn’t look like that. In reality, it’s not usually that big, and it seems to always be associated w/adjacent areas of much higher than average ozone.

“Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000,” Lu said. “Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate.”

The red dashed lines indicate ±95% uncertainty intervals corrected for “red noise”. Note the IPCC nominal trend of 0.2C/decades (purple) lies well outside and above those uncertainty intervals. This means that if 2001 is a “fair” year to begin comparisons between models and projections, then the nominal projection in the IPCC AR4 is inconsistent with the earth’s trend which it was intended to project. That is: The multi-mean of models is over-predicting the rate of warming of the earth’s surface.

The fact that a mechanism has been proposed doesn’t make it right. Unless you also have a way for CFC’s to somehow and preferential rise in the antarctic to the needed 40 + km level and only in winter when there is no sunlight anyway… I think your “mechanism” is doubtful at best. The CFC ban like the DDT ban has more to do with patent expiration than with environmental problems.

That’s a better analogy than I realized! Do any of the replacements of CFC like HCFC not have the same problem environmental problem? Isn’t their primary advantage that they cost more to buy and to use? Think of Parathion, Malthion etc.

It’s the cosmic rays! It’s the sun! It’s the oceans! It’s just natural cycles! It’s CFCs! It’s anything – anything but CO2! It doesn’t matter how much it contradicts any of the other shoddy studies you’ve hyped, does it?

It’s a real shame that posts aren’t ‘nested’ here! There is no way that I’ll read 167 posts to discover if any query was already answered for a post near the top of the list, then go over it all again for a later query. Thus any serious debate here is difficult (to say the least). So I guess I’ll only post to Anthony here!

I’m an engineer (universal millwright) and statistical/quantum disciplines look like magical belief to me, or perhaps more like ‘what is the possible outcome if we are blind to some of the processes involved’. I’ve only taken interest in climate science since the last couple of years, but I am beginning to form an opinion of the whole. Onwards to my opinion and assumption of your post subject.

My understanding is that ultraviolet (UV) radiation and more ‘energetic’ solar radiation generate ozone in the ozone layer by way of degenerating O2 to O. This gives an O2 molecule the opportunity to add an extra oxygen atom to its makeup and form O3. This also means that there is a propensity of oxygen atoms at this altitude.

The lack of an attractror (ozone) at a latitude and altitude will permit the ocean absorbption of UV which alters the ocean/atmospheric balance. Thus, an ozone barrier determines the absorption rate of deep ocean energy.

Wow,
This paper to my non-physicist’s eye looks like a reasonable piece of work. However it doesn’t conclude what the summary of this article claims it does. I wonder where the puported quotes from the author in the summary come from as they’re not very consistent with the content of the article.

“It’s the cosmic rays! It’s the sun! It’s the oceans! It’s just natural cycles! It’s CFCs! It’s anything – anything but CO2! It doesn’t matter how much it contradicts any of the other shoddy studies you’ve hyped, does it?”

Your saying “it” contradicts other studies doesn’t make it so. Nor have I seen Anthony or anyone on this site claim that only one of these “its” is totally responsible for climate change. The climate is an ever changing multi dimensional collection of processes and interactions affected by many causal agents, themselves dynamic.

I doubt you have a clue as to how any of it works. On the off chance you do, you should realize that what Lu is saying could potentially lead to a very dramatic increase in our understanding of the climate.

Read up a little on ozone, causes of pressure variability and atmospheric circulation patterns, and the consider this

“Our simple model cannot tell us exactly what these interactions are, but it does indicate that there may be interesting climate-changing phenomena out there that we’re only beginning to investigate.”

“The S.H. ozone hole deepened into the mid-1990s, while the Northern Annular Mode (NAM) became more positive. Both effects have since stabilized. We investigate a possible connection with modeling experiments of a S. H. spring ozone hole, and also year-round ozone loss in both polar regions. The S.H. ozone hole results in a more positive NAM-like phase extending down to the surface. Reduced vertical stability increases S.H. tropospheric wave energy flux into the stratosphere which drives a residual circulation with relative subsidence over the Southern pole and upwelling and reduced planetary wave energy flux at Northern high latitudes. The results suggest that similar trends in the Southern Ozone hole and the NAM over the last 20 years may be more than just a coincidence, although other factors undoubtedly influence the Northern high latitude circulation.”

I recall, but can’t find it quickly, a paper published some months ago by JPL showing that the reaction between chlorine and ozone under stratospheric conditions is an order of magnitude slower than was previously assumed, and thus cannot account for more than a fraction of the ozone depletion.

I wonder what happened to that one?

Note: link was originally at a paid nature.com account. It was reprinted at this site with permission

“As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.

Long-lived chloride compounds from anthropogenic emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are the main cause of worrying seasonal ozone losses in both hemispheres. In 1985, researchers discovered a hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic, after atmospheric chloride levels built up. The Montreal Protocol, agreed in 1987 and ratified two years later, stopped the production and consumption of most ozone-destroying chemicals. But many will linger on in the atmosphere for decades to come. How and on what timescales they will break down depend on the molecules’ ultraviolet absorption spectrum (the wavelength of light a molecule can absorb), as the energy for the process comes from sunlight. Molecules break down and react at different speeds according to the wavelength available and the temperature, both of which are factored into the protocol.

So Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere – almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.

“This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic).

If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.

Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. “Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.

“Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.”

The measurements at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory were overseen by Stanley Sander, a chemist who chairs a NASA panel for data evaluation. Every couple of years, the panel recommends chemical kinetics and photochemical data for use in atmosphere studies. Until the revised photolysis rate has been evaluated, which won’t be before the end of next year, “modellers must make up their minds about what to do,” says Sander. One of the problems with checking the data is that the absorption spectra of chloride compounds are technically challenging to determine. Sander’s group used a new technique to synthesize and purify Cl2O2. To avoid impurities and exclude secondary reactions, the team trapped the molecule at low temperatures, then slowly warmed it up.

“Reactions in experimental chambers are one thing – the free atmosphere is something else,” says Joe Farman, one of the scientists who first quantified the ozone hole over Antarctica3. “There’s no doubt that ozone disappears at up to 3% a day – whether or not we completely understand the chemistry.” But he adds that insufficient control of substances such as halon 1301, used as a flame suppressor, and HCFC22, a refrigerant, is a bigger threat to the success of the Montreal Protocol than are models that don’t match the observed losses.

Hot topic

Meanwhile, atmosphere researchers have started to think about how to reconcile observations of ozone depletion with the new chemical models. Several thermal reactions, or combinations of reactions, could fill the gap. Sander’s group has started to study possible candidates one by one – but so far without success.

Rex thinks that a chemical pathway involving a Cl2O2 isomer – a molecule with the same atoms but a different structure – might be at play. But even if the basic chemical model of ozone destruction is upheld, the temperature dependency of key reactions in the process could be very different – or even opposite – from thought. This could have dramatic consequences for the understanding of links between climate change and ozone loss, Rex says.

The new measurements raise “intriguing questions”, but don’t compromise the Montreal Protocol as such, says John Pyle, an atmosphere researcher at the University of Cambridge. “We’re starting to see the benefits of the protocol, but we need to keep the pressure on.” He says that he finds it “extremely hard to believe” that an unknown mechanism accounts for the bulk of observed ozone losses.

Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. “Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.”

Dave F (16:18:07) :
I am not sure what your point is, could you elaborate?
Yes. If you think you have evidence that you can stand behind that says CFC’s, not CO2 are responsible for global warming, then that’s a major finding. You’ll be famous. You wouldn’t add it as a one sentence, non -specific afterthought to a paper about something totally different.

How many of the commentariat here thought enough of this puff piece to actually buy the paper?

“Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. ‘Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.'”

The science is settled, nothing to see here, move along, it is all man’s fault. Gee, where did we hear this kind of statement recently? I still am not believing that it is the CFLs that are the cause of the ozone depletion. There are plenty of natural reasons noted in the comments as well as other places on the internet for Ozone depletion and going with the ‘its man’s fault’ hypothesis is nothing more than trying to ensure future funding in rent seeking research.

Yes. If you think you have evidence that you can stand behind that says CFC’s, not CO2 are responsible for global warming, then that’s a major finding. You’ll be famous. You wouldn’t add it as a one sentence,

Oh you mean like this last sentence (second paragraph) from Paul Crutzen where CFC’s seemingly outperform fossil fuels 100x, but then again he is ”famous’.

Nick Stokes (20:24:27) :
How many of the commentariat here thought enough of this puff piece to actually buy the paper?

But, but, but… It’s peer-reviewed! That is all that matters, right? If it’s peer reviewed, it must be correct! That is what AGW proponents had been telling us for years. That is what you had been using as a hammer to stifle any dissent. How do you like them apples now Nick?

On a little bit more serious note, this paper, whether complete garbage or absolute truth, by it’s very existence is sign of the floodgates opening.
I am finally hopeful that we might be able to win this thing.

“Yes. If you think you have evidence that you can stand behind that says CFC’s, not CO2 are responsible for global warming, then that’s a major finding. You’ll be famous. You wouldn’t add it as a one sentence, non -specific afterthought to a paper about something totally different.”

It isn’t a fact that no one would “add it as a one sentence…”
And the paper is not about something totally different, it is also about global warming, as you yourself posted:
“Finally, new observation of the effects of CFCs and cosmic-ray driven ozone depletion on global climate change is also presented and discussed.”

You’re not even a good spin doctor, Nick.

“How many of the commentariat here thought enough of this puff piece to actually buy the paper?”

Yes. If you think you have evidence that you can stand behind that says CFC’s, not CO2 are responsible for global warming, then that’s a major finding. You’ll be famous. You wouldn’t add it as a one sentence, non -specific afterthought to a paper about something totally different.

How many of the commentariat here thought enough of this puff piece to actually buy the paper?

Well it appears you did not. Neither did I, but not out of lack of curiosity.

Why ‘commentariat’? It sounds like commandant. Are you one of those people with the fetish of referring to people you do not like as evil Nazis? Because, ironically, that is what the Nazis did and it drives me crazy to see that kind of irony, so I hope not. I had thought from talking to you previously that you were above that, but I digress.

You would not add it as an after-thought unless it was possible for future studies and you did not want to appear as though you were making the claim that you have found the answer to climate change. Of course, that claim has been made before by certain scientists convinced that their work is important enough to explain all climate change, and especially the warming we are seeing in the modern period.

Only the most callous fur seal could be heartened by such a prospect. I am cheered only by Leif’s assurances that the sun doesn’t affect weather and the fact that the hardware store here in Houston hasn’t stocked any snow shovels (yet).

“My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century,” Lu said. “Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming.”

The second sentence is simply talking generically about the ozone hole and global warming, and not global warming at a specific locale.

never thought the day would come that I would agree with George Carlin– and multiple times to boot !!!

there is no way that we can heat or cool the earth— we can make it stinky, but that’s all.
ultimately it must be the sun.
after all, it has been both much warmer or cooler many times in the past irrespective of man’ s presence, or any of his flotsam

I draw your attention to the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers in AR4-wg1
On page 4 you will find fig spm2, Radiative Forcing Componenets
Now look at the last column headed LOSU (level of scientific understanding)

Of the 9 forcings listed, GHG’s are listed as high losu (surprise surprise)
The other 7 are medium(1) medium low(2) and low (4)

In other words, the IPCC has been preaching “CO2 did it” purely
because they don’t know enough about the other forcings on our climate.

What blogs like this one have been saying for years is that the science is NOT settled, that we just don’t know enough about the chaos of climate to be able to make century long dire predictions like the IPCC has done, and whenever a paper is released pointing to something other than CO2, it is highlighted to make this very point. Geddit?

To the extent that this work puts into perspective the influence of CFC chemicals on the global climate, it provides some explanation of why the down-trend in solar fusion activity noted in recent decades had not been coupled with global cooling as expected.

So let’s see…. If we’re at a point in the 1,500-year solar Dansgaard-Oeschger super-cycle at which we should reasonably expect to be seeing a drop in global temperatures, but that drop was deterred in onset until 2000 because we’d been releasing CFC aerosols into the atmosphere, then we really do have a way to fend off an oncoming ice age, don’t we?

With the understanding that periods of global cooling – not warming, but cooling – are associated with lower crop yields, poverty, disease, suffering, and death, wouldn’t it be time now to whack together a bunch of factories to manufacture Freon-12 and start releasing that blessed substance into the atmosphere?

An interesting hypothesis on the ozone/climate connection. More work needs to be done to try and falsify it, and it would be folly to think that this is THE cause of net global energy change, just as much it is stupid to think CO2 is THE cause.

Good evidence that climate has had rapid changes long before man even arrived on the scene. I’m coming to the conclusion that it is many interacting mechanisms in our climate system working together which cause the warm or cold modes which happen on a quasi-cyclical basis.

JonesII (12:57:24) :
“So…water comes from above…some times”

Thanks for this – very good point. The presence of water at very high altitude could alter our understanding of how the chemistry works, although quantification of the amount is needed.

Aren’t you all in a rather awkward position is you accept the conclusions of this paper.
That man realeased a greenhouse (CFCs) gases into the atmosphere and this caused global warming.
It would confirm that man can alter the climate by increasing the concentration of a GHG, which leaves the question why would CO2 be any different?

It is at least amusing to watch the warmist zealots tie themselves into sophistic knots trying to refute this paper.

Icarus protests that Lu’s hypothesis can’t hold water because the temperature trend is up, even though Lu specifically referred to the period post 2002. Icarus’ response: you can’t use a trend less than 15 years long. And why not? What is magical about 15 years? Of course, by specifying 15 years instead of say 10, and by picking the most agressive dataset – GISS say, and not UAH, you can still describe a positive anomaly.

Actually the whole trend argument is a misunderstanding of the physics. Lu is only pointing to a correlation between post 2002 cooling. It is perfectly consistent for the GCR mechanism to be responsible for this cooling blip, and for temperatures to later increase if the GCR’s go down. That is all Lu is saying – it has nothing to do with long term trends.

Nick Stokes skirts round the science altogether. The finding can’t be significant because if it were, it would be given pride of place in the abstract. That of course, is an ‘argumentum ad hopum’ – hope that the finding isn’t significant because the author downplayed it.

Vincent (02:40:03) :
“Icarus protests that Lu’s hypothesis can’t hold water because the temperature trend is up, even though Lu specifically referred to the period post 2002. Icarus’ response: you can’t use a trend less than 15 years long. And why not? What is magical about 15 years? Of course, by specifying 15 years instead of say 10, and by picking the most agressive dataset – GISS say, and not UAH, you can still describe a positive anomaly.

Actually the whole trend argument is a misunderstanding of the physics. Lu is only pointing to a correlation between post 2002 cooling. It is perfectly consistent for the GCR mechanism to be responsible for this cooling blip, and for temperatures to later increase if the GCR’s go down. That is all Lu is saying – it has nothing to do with long term trends.

Nick Stokes skirts round the science altogether. The finding can’t be significant because if it were, it would be given pride of place in the abstract. That of course, is an ‘argumentum ad hopum’ – hope that the finding isn’t significant because the author downplayed it.

Well, I guess hope is all these people have left now.”

Reply: Spot-on Vincent.

The ship of CO2 CAGW has been taking much water for some years now and the bilge pumps (IPCC AR4, MSM, average global temperature data from CRU/GISS et al) where overheating trying to save the crew.

Then it got holed again by the Climategate iceberg and is now sinking so fast that only the brave few are staying behind. They are prepared to sink with their ship due to the strength of their belief or vested interest.

What an excellent Christmas present for the many CAGW sceptics around the world :-)

““I’m sure William Connolly is already scheming on how to spin this on the Cosmic Ray pages Wikipedia pages”

Too late, you can easily check the history/talk page of the article – the Climate Cabal on wikipedia has been *ahem* correcting the cosmic ray article for years now.

I sort of have a habit of checking every talk page related to climate change and I’ve never once been dissapointed – even the most esoteric of articles (like specific, practically unknown scientists who oppose AGW theory) will be altered in the most biased of ways by them.”

I sure would like to know who is paying the salaries of the editors doing all the changes and if their sole job is to make sure Wiki only presents the Climate Cabal’s point of view.

Gary Pearse, thank you for answering ThinkingBeing. WUWT is about encouraging open debate on scientific issues and not about spoon feeding propaganda to school children. I doubt he will pay the $31.50 or even bother to read further into the comments since open debate on science was not his real objective.

I am a scientific nuffy so this question might well be totally stupid, but I’d like someone to say that’s the case if possible!

My understanding, from various reading, is:
1. Cosmic rays can develop an increase in clouds
2. Solar wind deflects a proportion of cosmic rays away from the earth
3. Earth’s magnetic field deflects the solar wind from the earth’s atmosphere

Result of 1 can be cooling (which we’re apparently seeing over the last decade).
Currently the solar wind is at its slowest since it’s been recorded, which would potentially explain part 1 as well, as it’s not deflecting as many cosmic rays away.

What I’m unsure about is the relationship between earth’s magnetic field, deflection of solar wind and global temperature/climate.

I’ve read from various NASA publications that the magnetic field is in rapid decline and has been for the last 150 years, and the rate of decline in the magnetic field seems to match relatively well with the general warming trend…do the solar cycles also reflect the relative cooling periods, where presumably solar wind dies down, cosmic ray activity increases, cloud coverage increases and temperature drops?

If none of what I’ve said above is completely wrong, then it’d sound like a reasonable contributor to climate change.

I now throw myself at the mercy of those of you with far greater knowledge and understanding of this stuff than I!

CO2 is different in potential effect as its radiative filtering is weaker than that of CFC.

CO2 is negligible in observed effect, which we would probably understand much better if the climate orthodoxy weren’t in denial about this. Sherwood Idso (Climate Research, 10, 69-82) in 1998 provided a great starting point for investigation.

I am a new convert – from a believer who always thought that CO2 causes global warming to a skeptic, i.e. global warming is not caused by CO2 but if it still happens then it must be something else, defintely not CO2.
I found that most scientists skeptic of AGW think that climate is related to cloud formation. This does make a lot of sense to me. The more cloud formation, the more sunlight is deflected from earth. The less cloud formation the more heat is absorbed by earth (the oceans act as buffers for this energy). In its turn, cloud formation can apparently be related to solar activity. More solar wind means fewer cosmic rays and fewer cosmic rays mean fewer clouds. It is predicted that a period of more clouds is now coming, i.e. global cooling is apparently on hand. (I know some people in the northern hemishere who might actually not like to hear that!)
If this all be true (??), then the professors’ findings here do actually make sense to me. In any case, the closing of the ozone hole will lead to to more UV light being blocked, hence a greater earth’s albedo.

New types of Freon get banned for being environmentally “dangerous”, strangely, every time a specific model of refrigirant’s patent expires. And then, all air conditioning units and a lot if the industrial technology have to get replaced, major conversions in cars, new fluid, humongous costs to end-users.

I accept without question that CFCs and CO2 are different but they are both GHGs. I wanted to point out that by accepting the conclusions of this paper you accept:

The recent warming isn’t ‘natural’ CFCs did it, tiny changes in concentration of atmospheric gases do alter the climate and therefore mans actions can cause global warming in what is a very short period of time.

“…I’ve always been very skeptical on CFC’s having anything to do with ozone depletion. Molecules of CFCs are all much heavier than air. How do they get up to the stratosphere? Molecular chlorine from natural and human made sources is far lighter than any CFC.

Chlorine and other potentially ozone depleting stuff from explosive volcanic eruptions gets an express ride to the stratosphere. The people pushing the claim that only CFC’s cause ozone depletion say chlorine from such volcanoes and other natural sources all “rains out” before reaching the ozone layer….”

They always neglect to mention the active Antarctic volcano or the one in Iceland.

“The 12,444-foot high Mount Erebus volcano dominates the western end of Ross Island in Antarctica, where the U.S. McMurdo Station is located. It’s an active volcano and you can see steam coming from it many days. It is the southernmost active volcano in the world.

There is evidence of a volcano under the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. But, says Philip Kyle of the New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology, even if there is an erupting volcano under the ice, it’s not going to melt the ice sheet. Essentially it comes down to the fact that there is a lot of ice and even a large volcano is not going to melt much of it. “A couple of years ago there was an eruption through the ice in Iceland,”http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/coldscience/avolcano.htm

“Volcanoes in Iceland

Iceland contains some fascinating volcanoes. The volcanism on Iceland is attributed to the combination of Mid Atlantic Ridge activity and hot spot activity. Eruptions occur about every 5-10 years. The Mid Atlantic ridge is visible on land in Iceland and gives an indication of volcanic activity not normally observed.

Almost 60% of the world’s regional fissure eruptions have been in Iceland

Iceland is one of the most active volcanic regions on Earth. It is estimated that 1/3 of the lava erupted since 1500 A.D. was produced in Iceland. Iceland has 35 volcanoes that have erupted in the last 10,000 years. On average, a volcano erupts about every 5 years. Eleven volcanoes have erupted between 1900 and 1998: Krafla, Askja, Grimsvotn, Loki-Fogrufjoll, Bardarbunga, Kverkfjoll, Esjufjoll, Hekla, Katla, Surtsey, and Heimaey. Most of the eruptions were from fissures or shield volcanoes and involve the effusion of basaltic lava.”

The new measurements raise “intriguing questions”, but don’t compromise the Montreal Protocol as such, says John Pyle, an atmosphere researcher at the University of Cambridge. “We’re starting to see the benefits of the protocol, but we need to keep the pressure on.” He says that he finds it “extremely hard to believe” that an unknown mechanism accounts for the bulk of observed ozone losses.

Oh they are wonderful. I don’t think even politicians can be so invariably correct as these guys.

“It’s the cosmic rays! It’s the sun! It’s the oceans! It’s just natural cycles! It’s CFCs! It’s anything – anything but CO2! It doesn’t matter how much it contradicts any of the other shoddy studies you’ve hyped, does it?”

Do you really think there is just ONE and ONLY ONE factor???? If that is so then Man Made CO2 just got knocked out of the game because there would not have been any climate variation until the industrial age. Thanks for the argument against CO2

Hardly. You are making the mistake of lumping CFCs in with GHGs. It does not seem likely that they would operate the same way. So what argument is blown away? That changes in the atmospheric concentration of certain gases can have an effect? I think acid rain has already proved that true. What you can’t do, however, is say that because there was acid rain, CO2 is going to cause 6C/century of warming, get it?

Just finished the paper. Very interesting. The arguments for a new CR/CFC driven ozone depletion mechanism are IMO strong. The temperature effects are a little more tenuous. Essentially the lower ozone levels cause cooling in the upper atmosphere and thus cooling eventually over all the earth. There is a good trend match in the rise in global temperatures above the preindustrial levels that correlates well with the increase and decrease of CFCs. Lu has not said all temperature change is due to this mechanism but that it well explains the recent (since 1950) changes. Lu is predicting a general cooling of the earth over the next few decades as the CFC levels in the atmosphere gradual decline.

One question I did have is in his plot of CR intensity versus time (fig. 20), he has extrapolated the typical 11 year cycle into the future but has the average level increasing over time. It appears it is due to fitting the last 3.5 of solar cycles. Is this just due to the recent high level of CR or a true long term trend?

“Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. ‘Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.’”

The science is settled, nothing to see here, move along, it is all man’s fault. Gee, where did we hear this kind of statement recently

It might be because BOTH statements came from Maurice Strong at the 1972 Stockholme Conference and he has had the a LOT of money and political clout behind him to push the “green watermelon agenda” world wide for the past 35 years.

As Leif Svalgaard has pointed out on several occasions, one question regarding cosmic rays, is the adequacy of the flux for getting the job done.

I would presume that one cosmic ray primary can scrunch one Ozone molecule, or the secondary particle shower from one CR could take out a handful of O3 molecules. But the usual chemistry explanation for the Chlorine destruction of Ozone, is that it is a catalytic reaction. So one CR busting up a CFC molecule, which I presume are far more stable that O3, can release a Chlorine that just keeps on working on the Ozone. The CFCs are the stable transport vehicle that gets the chlorine up to the ozone layer; whereas free chlorine is too reactive to survive the journey. Well that’s my hand waving way of putting it. The real chemists can talk about rates and all that stuff.

So while CRs can certainly destroy O3, Chlorine does it more effectively since the Chlorine is not bound up in the process, so freeing the Chlorine from the CFC is a more significant result of the CRs, than directly attacking the O3 themselves.

I’ve never done the math on CR rates, and the likely destruction rates from either primaries or charged particle showers from the primary collisions; but I know Leif, has expressed doubts about the rates, with regard to the Svensmark mechanism (clouds).

Does ozone “hole” activity correspond to any other known *and actually measured* cyclical process?

I’ve always been very skeptical on CFC’s having anything to do with ozone depletion. Molecules of CFCs are all much heavier than air. How do they get up to the stratosphere? Molecular chlorine from natural and human made sources is far lighter than any CFC. “””

Well I’m a believer that we have always had ozone holes long before anybody looked for one and found it; so the CFC thesis has always been a maybe for me. I believe that the chemist who developed the chemistry of the Chlorine catalytic destruction of Ozone, ended up getting a Nobel prize for that work, although I’m not sure he ever personally proved that that reaction was a ctually occurring in the upper atmosphere, and I’ve read of subsequent work that throws doubt on his chemistry. I do see claims that the CFCs have been detected up there.

Your info on free Fluorine is interesting. I always wondered why one blamed the Chlorine in the CFC rather than the Fluorine, which is hell on wheels compared to Chlorine (or Bromine). I guess I just put it down to the Fluorine being so hot to trot, that it never was free long enough to get to any ozone molecules.

We used to use a good amount of HF in semiconductor wafer fab processing, in either Silicon, or Gallium Arsenide bnased LED materials. Those fab areas always had sinks and water; but sometimes the fab workers were a bit sloppy washing something in the sink, and would get water on the bench. Well if they didn’t clean the water up instantly before leaving the sink; well all hell would break loose, which would dissuade them from repeating the laxity.
The lab rule written on prominent posters, was that ANY liquid appearing on a lab bench when worker went there, WAS HYDROFLUORIC ACID, and had to be treated as such; so the hazmat team had to go to work to decontaminate the area for what might have been just some splashed water droplets. Well if you have ever seen the results of HF eating through somebody’s flesh and getting down to the bone; and then having a Chritmas party on their bone; you would understand why we NEVER took any chances with HF or possible HF contamination.

I imagine that playing around with Fluorine gas, is about as much fun as experimenting with Ebola virus.

It’s the cosmic rays! It’s the sun! It’s the oceans! It’s just natural cycles! It’s CFCs! It’s anything – anything but CO2! It doesn’t matter how much it contradicts any of the other shoddy studies you’ve hyped, does it?

I think the agreement made in Copenhagen is not really bad (even for skeptics of AGW). If you read Fred Haynie’s research (www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf), you will find that one of his conclusions was that there are thousands of natural temperature cycles with swings of around two degrees from a declining trend (that started 10000 yrs ago) .
So I think it must have been with some of these statistics in mind that the 2 degree limit has been given by Copenhagen. Fred also predicts a downturn soon. So let both him and Lu be right, then everything is going to be fine? Have a blessed Christmas and New Year you all!

My point was that factions on both sides of the aisle are trying to hang their hat on one singular influence for global warming, real or not. Whereas there could be 25-30 natural and human reasons for the global warming “history”. This in-fighting for a winner-take-all verdict from history is leading to policy intertia. With all the unknowns or degrees of influence by any factors, this could be a good thing. Sometimes it’s better to do nothing than to do harm through good intentions.

The magnetosphere and magnetic field of Mercury during the three Messanger flybys , the first on January 14 , 2008 and the last September 29 , 2009 appeared to bit different from the Mariner 10’s first fly-by on March 29, 1974 . Messenger found Mercurys magnetic field was generally quiet but showed several signatures indicating significant pressure within the megnetosphere , far more active than first thought , with magnetic twisters which dance across its surface. One of the biggest surprises was how strongly the dynamics of the planets magnetic field-solar wind interaction had changed from the first Mercury fly-by by Messenger in January 2008 and the last in September 2009 ?

Venus has a 2500% Increase in Green Glow in the last 20 years since Pioneer Venus One’s fly-by on May 20,1978. Last year amatuar astronomers observed ‘ bright spots ‘ in Venus’s atmosphere as well .

Mars has had a rapid appearence of ozone and clouds in the peroids between 1975 thur 1997 . Mars never had clouds before 1975 . Global Warming on Mars has been detected and erossion of ice features is up 50% in one year.

Io’s surface is over 200% hotter from 1979 to 1998 , three times hotter than Mercurys surface !!! But Dr Alfred McEwen , University of Arizona simply stated it ” surprised ” scientists and they ” couldn’t explain “. ?

Jupiters other moons Europa is much brighter than expected , Ganymede is 200% brighter from 1979 to 1995 with some areas 700% brighter , and Jupiter itself has increased 1000% in Atmospheric density from 1979 to 1995 said Dr.Melissa McGrath .

Saturn’s plasma torus is 1000 times more denser from 1981 to 1993 , said Dr Ed Sittler , NASA . In 1995 , Aurorae were first seen in Saturn’s polar regions stated Dr. J.T. Trauger , NASA HubbleSite while in 2004 , massive x-rays emissions were detected on Saturn by Dr.Jan Uwe-Ness , University of Hamburg , Germany .

Neptune in 1989 had relatively few bright clouds but from 1996 to 2002 , Neptune was 40% brighter , near-infrared range and finally Pluto was experencing global warming and a 300% increase in Atmosphere Pressure from 1989 to 2002 , said Dr. James Elliot , MIT / NASA .

Why ??? Could the planets be heating up from the inside and if that’s true , then Why again . . . Maybe Galactic Energy Fields are to blame , or Cosmic Rays ?

Of course alot of this data was from the past and more up to date information must be available but in todays world and in todays Sciences where the numbers can be manipulated or ‘ tricked ‘ , we will have to take the word of our Mainstream Scientists ???

One of the comments posted here simply stated : ” Not a climate scientist. Move along ” That comment may have been the most accurate acknowledgments in the Man Made Global Warming , Natural Climate Change argument . While the public now knows that ClimateGate has exposed the fabricated Man Made Global Warming theory to be a hoax , the question of Natural Climate Change still exists and while Man Made Global Warming is exclusively limited to the planet Earth , Natural Climate Change is not . One would almost have to be a Astrophysicist to figure this out ?

So how are our neighbors in the solar system doing ?

The magnetosphere and magnetic field of Mercury during the three Messanger flybys , the first on January 14 , 2008 and the last September 29 , 2009 appeared to bit different from the Mariner 10’s first fly-by on March 29, 1974 . Messenger found Mercurys magnetic field was generally quiet but showed several signatures indicating significant pressure within the megnetosphere , far more active than first thought , with magnetic twisters which dance across its surface. One of the biggest surprises was how strongly the dynamics of the planets magnetic field-solar wind interaction had changed from the first Mercury fly-by by Messenger in January 2008 and the last in September 2009 ?

Venus has a 2500% Increase in Green Glow in the last 20 years since Pioneer Venus One’s fly-by on May 20,1978. Last year amatuar astronomers observed ‘ bright spots ‘ in Venus’s atmosphere as well .

Mars has had a rapid appearence of ozone and clouds in the peroids between 1975 thur 1997 . Mars never had clouds before 1975 . Global Warming on Mars has been detected and erossion of ice features is up 50% in one year.

Io’s surface is over 200% hotter from 1979 to 1998 , three times hotter than Mercurys surface !!! But Dr Alfred McEwen , University of Arizona simply stated it ” surprised ” scientists and they ” couldn’t explain “. ?

Jupiters other moons Europa is much brighter than expected , Ganymede is 200% brighter from 1979 to 1995 with some areas 700% brighter , and Jupiter itself has increased 1000% in Atmospheric density from 1979 to 1995 said Dr.Melissa McGrath .

Saturn’s plasma torus is 1000 times more denser from 1981 to 1993 , said Dr Ed Sittler , NASA . In 1995 , Aurorae were first seen in Saturn’s polar regions stated Dr. J.T. Trauger , NASA HubbleSite while in 2004 , massive x-rays emissions were detected on Saturn by Dr.Jan Uwe-Ness , University of Hamburg , Germany .

Neptune in 1989 had relatively few bright clouds but from 1996 to 2002 , Neptune was 40% brighter , near-infrared range and finally Pluto was experencing global warming and a 300% increase in Atmosphere Pressure from 1989 to 2002 , said Dr. James Elliot , MIT / NASA .

Why ??? Could the planets be heating up from the inside and if that’s true , then Why again . . . Maybe Galactic Energy Fields are to blame , or Cosmic Rays ?

Of course alot of this data was from the past and more up to date information must be available but in todays world and in todays Sciences where the numbers can be manipulated or ‘ tricked ‘ , we will have to take the word of our Mainstream Scientists ???

Vincent (02:40:03) :
It is at least amusing to watch the warmist zealots tie themselves into sophistic knots trying to refute this paper.
I’m just curious to know if anyone here has actually read it. I admit I haven’t. I would do that before trying to refute it.

maksimovich (20:34:24) :
Oh you mean like this last sentence (second paragraph) from Paul Crutzen where CFC’s seemingly outperform fossil fuels 100x, but then again he is ”famous’.
That’s twisted beyond belief. He says nothing like that. He says that the greenhouse effect warming from all GHG is 100x the heat of combustion of fossil fuel burnt.

***********
George E. Smith (11:10:21) :
Well if you have ever seen the results of HF eating through somebody’s flesh and getting down to the bone; and then having a Chritmas party on their bone; you would understand why we NEVER took any chances with HF or possible HF contamination.

*******************
I have seen the results of that and it ain’t pretty.

I concur with you both. Even if there isn’t any broken skin, the ‘patient’ still needs calcium tablets as a hope to increase their blood calcium level in an effort to neutralise the hydroflouric acid that’s coursing through there body! It seems that calcium is the only effective neutralising agent for fluorine, but isn’t this a tad OT?

Perhaps not when we are considering ‘atmospheric chemistry’. What does fluoride do there?

The benchmark of a good hypothesis is that it has reasonable predictive accuracy. In other words, if you propose a hypothesis, then you’re effectively making a prediction about what happens when A + B. For instance, AGW states that CO2 increases the global temperature, and has predictive climate models proposing various outcomes from catastrophic to mild, depending on what we, as a people, do with CO2 production. So far, those predictions have consistantly overshot what has happened in the atmosphere, as we continue to trawl along the bottom of the best case scenarios (poor predictive power), however their claims at that there are tipping points, etc. Time will tell.

So will they tell with Dr. Lu’s hypothesis. He’s stated we’ll enter a 50 year cooling trend, driving by the dissolution of CFCs in the atmosphere, combined with an increase in ozone.

Effectively, at this point he’s shown a correlation between the two, but not causality. If his prediction holds true, that will be the defining factor in proving his hypothesis. Given that there is no control for planet Earth, all hypothesis about climate necessitate a predictive reliability be built into the hypothesis to allow future scientists the opportunity to disprove or validate it. Please do not call out Dr. Lu for only making a correlative connection when that’s EXACTLY what the AGW groups have been doing for decades now, combined with clever data manipulation to make it appear that their predictions were prophetic (instead of the trash they are, not worth they journals they’re printed in).

“Vincent (02:40:03) :
It is at least amusing to watch the warmist zealots tie themselves into sophistic knots trying to refute this paper.
I’m just curious to know if anyone here has actually read it. I admit I haven’t. I would do that before trying to refute it.”

Do you feel conned again?, Anyhow the positive side of this Great discovery is that they obviously support the theories from Svensmark and Shaviv.
Svensmark (Denmark) and Nir Shaviv (Israel) have published extensively about these cosmic rays and cosmic clouds.

Nir Shaviv writes:
“Cosmic Rays, at least at energies lower than 1015eV, are accelerated by supernova remnants. In our galaxy, most supernovae are the result of the death of massive stars. In spiral galaxies like our own, most of the star formation takes place in the spiral arms. These are waves which revolve around the galaxy at a speed different than the stars. Each time the wave passes (or is passed through), interstellar gas is shocked and forms new stars. Massive stars that end their lives with a supernova explosion, live a relatively short life of at most 30 million years, thus, they die not far form the spiral arms where they were born. As a consequence, most cosmic rays are accelerated in the vicinity of spiral arms. The solar system, however, has a much longer life span such that it periodically crosses the spiral arms of the Milky Way. Each time it does so, it should witness an elevated level of cosmic rays. In fact, the cosmic ray flux variations arising from our galactic journey are ten times larger than the cosmic ray flux variations due to solar activity modulations, at the energies responsible for the tropospheric ionization (of order 10 GeV). If the latter is responsible for a 1°K effect, spiral arm passages should be responsible for a 10°K effect—more than enough to change the state of earth from a hothouse, with temperate climates extending to the polar regions, to an icehouse, with ice-caps on its poles, as Earth is today. In fact, it is expected to be the most dominant climate driver on the 108 to 109 yr time scale.http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate”

So here you have it.

Our sun and our position in the interstellar space determines our climate, together with our sun, oceans and volcano’s.

The atomic weight of any CFC molecule makes it too heavy to rise in the atmosphere to the level of the ozone layer.

No, it doesn’t. There are plenty of things heavier than air suspended in the upper atmosphere. Dust particles include heavy metals, for one thing. If you stopped the wind, most of it would precipitate out.

Andrew Weaver- climate scientist at University of Victoria , and one of the names in the CRU emails, wrote a letter to the local paper claiming that ‘global dimming’ due to increased particulate matter in the atmoshere is responsible for the tree-ring reconstructed northern hemisphere temperatures diverging from the observed temperature record since the 1960’shttp://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/letters/Global+dimming+tree+rings/2381281/story.html
I guess he has to say something.

The ludicrous part of this report is the mention of CFCs at all. And this is another great example that correlation does not indicate causation.

Since CFCs are at 80 ppt (parts per trillion), they would be about 5,000,000 less concentrated than CO2 (385 ppm) in the atmosphere. To think that this could drive the climate or warm it is really pursuing the “we have to find a way to blame it on humans no matter what” idea to its bitter end.

They are banking on people not realizing how relatively little CFCs there is in the atmosphere while they recognize CFCs as an alarming term from years ago.